Re: Namespace of ODRL

Hi Ray,

My point in all of this is that in practice it's not meaningfully cleaner at all.

If you're bringing your own 'ingredients', they will exist in their own namespace, regardless of whether ODRL itself is split over one or two. I'm not sure ODRL should really be promoting (even implicitly) such an all-or-nothing approach to the vocabulary.

The actual effect is that we're forcing users and developers to specify two namespace URIs when they could just as easily use one — and as things stand the separation isn't entirely clean under the hood, although some of that's my fault (the high-level classes defined by the vocab ontology should probably be moved into the model… though that still leaves things like Offer and Agreement defined as subclasses by the vocab).

I *do* think the separate model/vocab documentation (as we have now) is a good thing, though, even if the terms themselves exist within a shared namespace…

M.

On  2013-Jul-15, at 14:52, Ray Gauss II <ray.gauss@rightspro.com>
 wrote:

> My 2 cents (as a developer) ...
>
> We could draw an analogy of pots and pans (model) and ingredients (vocab):
>
> As a cook, I should probably know the difference between an ingredient and a pot or pan.
>
> As stated previously, the pots and pans are much less likely to change than ingredients, and if I start to cook with new ingredients I shouldn't have to version my pots and pans.
>
> If I decide I love ODRL's pots and pans but not the ingredients I can use my own, and with the clean separation I'll be less likely to accidentally use some ODRL sugar.
>
> I personally think the separation makes sense.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> On  2013-Jul-15, at 13:50, "Myles, Stuart" <SMyles@ap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 3) Using the same base URI for both the vocab and the model
>>>
>>> I don't see this as being as crucial, in part because the model and the vocabulary are distinct in my mind. Not least  because ODRL v2 is described as being a framework, where particular industries can supply their own verticals, as needed. Perhaps this was necessary to state, in order to help spread the idea of ODRL but in practice isn't necessary, since few industries are creating their own specific vocabulary (except for RightsML http://dev.iptc.org/RightsML - and even this only differs from the common vocabulary in very few ways).
>>
>> I do understand the rationale, but I feel *moderately* strongly that:
>>
>> - Separating them adds a burden of complexity all round (not least because developers and authors have to remember whether a given foo is part of the vocab or the model, rather than it being 'ODRL' or 'something which builds on ODRL').
>>
>> - It's not necessary to do it in order to support an extensible landscape, be that things derived from ODRL, or extensions (such as new kinds of Action).
>>
>> I *do* think it's a good thing to call out the extensibility in the spec, though.
>>
>> M.
>>
>> --
>> Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
>> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
>> MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
>> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
>> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
>> If you have received it in
>> error, please delete it from your system.
>> Do not use, copy or disclose the
>> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
>> immediately.
>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
>> sent or received.
>> Further communication will signify your consent to
>> this.
>> -----------------------------
>>
>


--
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------

Received on Monday, 15 July 2013 14:12:25 UTC